[OpenAFS-devel] [FOR TESTING] OpenAFS 1.4.0-rc1 RPMs for RHEL4 (i386, x86_64)

[Markus Suvanto]

Osote, josta latailin redhat:in afs:n paketit.

-Markus

Ps. Näytti olevan jo 1.4.0-rc1 ??



On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 05:28:55PM -0400, Christopher Allen Wing wrote:
> I updated the RHEL4 RPMs to the 1.4.0-rc1 release.
> 
> Changes between the previous (1.3.87) RPMs and these RPMs:
> 
> 	- I included Russ Allbery's patch from RT #18767 to fix the shared
> 	  library versioning on Linux (set the ELF SONAME properly). This
> 	  will fix the RPM dependency problem various people have
> 	  complained about, and ensure that the AFS shared libraries
> 	  adhere to the Linux version naming convention.
> 
> 	  See http://rt.central.org/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=18767
> 
> 	- On a related note, I split out the shared libraries (libafsrpc
> 	  and libafsauthent) and related files into 2 new packages:
> 	  'openafs-authlibs' and 'openafs-authlibs-devel'. Since nothing
> 	  in the OpenAFS build actually uses these libraries at the
> 	  moment, they should probably go into a separate piece for now.
> 
> 	- fixed a few small typos/bugs in the RPM spec file
> 
> 
> 
> You can download the 1.4.0-rc1 packages for i386 and x86_64 from:
> 
> 	http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~wingc/openafs/dist/1.4.0-rc1
> 
> 
> Note that the pam_krb5 module in RHEL4 is defective. It will not obtain 
> AFS tokens if -dynroot is enabled (which is the default in OpenAFS 1.4); 
> it also may not obtain tokens if you have more than 1 AFS server. I have 
> entered bug reports and patches in bugzilla but Red Hat has not acted upon 
> any of them. In the mean time you can download fixed pam_krb5 RPMs for 
> i386 and x86_64 from here:
> 
> 	http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~wingc/openafs/pam_krb5/2.1.2-1.fixed
> 
> 
> 
> Along the same lines of the recent discussion about OpenBSD, should any 
> extra configuration options be enabled for these RPMs? (I am thinking of 
> --enable-largefile-fileserver and --enable-supergroups, for instance)
> 
> My thinking has been that since they are not enabled by default in the 
> OpenAFS source, they shouldn't be enabled in the RPMs either. Is there any 
> reason to disagree with this?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Chris Wing
> wingc@engin.umich.edu
> _______________________________________________
> OpenAFS-devel mailing list
> OpenAFS-devel@openafs.org
> https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

This e-mail and any attachment is confidential. All rights are reserved by Hantro Products Oy. This e-mail is intended only for the addressee. Although Hantro Products Oy reasonably scans e-mails sent from e-mail addresses under its control for known viruses, Hantro Products Oy disclaims, to the maximum extent possible under applicable laws, any liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this or any other e-mail.